Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 8, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wherein a unit region…are arranged to be adjacent is arrayed in the width direction" in ll. 1-4. Suggest rephrasing to read “wherein a unit region…are arranged to be adjacent, and arrayed in the width direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg (US 2018/0164387 A1, Pub. Date Jun. 14, 2018, hereinafter, Raberg), in view of Takenaka (US 2018/0120357 A1, Pub. Date May 3, 2018, hereinafter, Takenaka), in view of Suto et al. (US 2016/0204161 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 14, 2016, hereinafter, Suto), and further in view of Bilbao De Mendizabal et al. (US 2019/0212372 A1, Pub. Date Jul. 11, 2019, hereinafter, Bilbao).
Regarding independent claim 1, Raberg, teaches:
A magnetic sensor comprising a first magneto-electric conversion unit including a first resistive side, a second resistive side, a third resistive side, and a fourth resistive side (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]), wherein magnetic sensing directions of the first resistive side and the fourth resistive side are identical to each other and magnetic sensing directions of the second resistive side and the third resistive side are identical to each other and opposite to the magnetic sensing directions of the first resistive side and the fourth resistive side (Fig. 9; [0105]-[0106]: discloses aligning the reference magnetizations (sensing directions) of the 1st and 4th elements to be identical to one another, and antiparallel (opposite) to the 2nd and 3rd elements), the first resistive side and the second resistive side are connected in series, the third resistive side and the fourth resistive side are connected in series and are connected in parallel to the first resistive side and the second resistive side to be assembled into a Wheatstone bridge circuit (Fig. 5; [0056], [0058], [0063], & [0068]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
each formed by connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series, the unit region being among unit regions where at least some magnetoresistive elements among the plurality of magnetoresistive elements each forming the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side are arranged to be adjacent in a width direction.
However, Suto, further teaches:
each formed by connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series (Figs. 3A & 8; [0034] & [0069]: teaches forming the resistive sides (arrays) by connecting multiple MR elements in series),
the unit region being among unit regions where at least some magnetoresistive elements among the plurality of magnetoresistive elements each forming the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side are arranged to be adjacent in a width direction (Figs. 3A & 8; [0034], [0069], & [Claim 1]: the MR elements 30 that make up each resistive side of the bridge are arranged adjacent to one another in rows/columns (a matrix) along the width direction for the larger “unit regions” or resistor arrays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor bridge circuit of Raberg, to configure each resistive side as a resistor array comprising a plurality of magnetoresistive elements connected in series and arranged adjacently, as taught by Suto. A POSITA would have been motivated to implement the series-connected plurality of MR elements taught by Suto into respective resistive branches of Raberg’s bridge circuit “to provide a magnetic sensor capable of improving the linearity of the output while minimizing any reduction in magnetic field detection sensitivity” ([0009] & [0011]). The predictable result of the combination would be a magnetic sensor with an expanded linear operating range and improved linearity. Allowing the sensor to accurately measure a wide range of magnetic fields and electrical currents without sacrificing the MR ratio or detection sensitivity. This constitutes the application of a known technique, using a series array of sensors) to a known device (magnetoresistive bridge) to achieve expected predictable results (KSR) with improved linearity.
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
and at least a part of the first magneto-electric conversion unit is arranged on a first arm included in a conductor,
However, Takenaka, in combination with Bilbao, further teach:
and at least a part of the first magneto-electric conversion unit is arranged on a first arm included in a conductor (Takenaka: Fig. 1B; [0034] & [0036]; Bilbao: [0008], [0011], & [00053]-[0053]: both references teach arranging the magnetic sensor unit directly onto or adjacent to an arm/branch of a conductor (e.g., busbar)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current measurement device and conductor arrangement of Takenaka to include sizing the magneto-electric conversion unit to be 0.3 times or less the width of the arm conductor arm, and positioning it at specific offset nodes, as taught by Bilbao. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Bilbao’s spatial placement teachings to mitigate known skin effects, as taught by Bilbao, ([0077]-[0078]). Sizing the physical width of Takenaka’s sensor array to be 0.3 times or less the width of the busbar is a routine design optimization to confine the sensor within the narrow, low-dispersion spatial nodes taught by Bilbao. The predictable results of this combination (KSR) is a wide-frequency current sensor that provides stable magnetic gain and phase measurements resistant to edge-effect distortions.
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
wherein a width of the first magneto-electric conversion unit, which is a separation distance between a center of gravity of a unit region of a resistive side positioned on one outermost side in a width direction of the first arm and a center of gravity of a unit region of a resistive side positioned at another outermost side is 0.3 times or less a width of the first arm,
However, Raberg, in combination with Bilbao, further teach:
wherein a width of the first magneto-electric conversion unit, which is a separation distance between a center of gravity of a unit region of a resistive side positioned on one outermost side in a width direction of the first arm and a center of gravity of a unit region of a resistive side positioned at another outermost side (Raberg: Figs. 5 & 6; [0030]: Figs. 5 & 6 illustrate the physical layout of the four magnetoresistive elements spaced apart on a substrate; Bilbao: Fig. 2A; [Abstract], [0008], [0011], [0049], [0052]-[0053], [0078]-[0079], & [Claim 1]: teaches the geometry, placing the current sensor at specific spatial nodes relative to the width (W) of the conductor (e.g., W/3, W/4, W5) to mitigate magnetic field dispersion) is 0.3 times or less a width of the first arm (Raberg: Figs. 5 & 6; Bilbao: Fig. 2A; [Abstract], [0011], [0052]-[0053], [0078]-[0079], & [Claim 1]: further teaches the optimal placement zones are defined by the fractions (where W/3 is ~0.33x and W/4 is 0.25x the width)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor bridge circuit of Raberg, to be sized such that its total width (distance between the outermost resistive sides) is 0.3 times or less the width of the underlying conductor arm, and positioned a specific offset nodes along the conductor, as taught by Bilbao. A POSITA would have been motivated to apply Bilbao’s teachings, placing the sensor at spatial nodes offset from the conductor’s center due to the phase shift variation and magnetic gain variation “significantly attenuated and the dispersion of the field due to frequency greatly decrease” ([0078]). The predictable result of this combination would be a stable magnetic sensor capable of delivering consistent linear measurements across a range of frequencies (KSR). Sizing the Raberg convert unit to be 0.3 times or less the width of the conductor arm is a routine optimization of physical dimensions to utilize the low-dispersion nodes taught by Bilbao.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the conductor further includes a second arm that is separated from the first arm in the width direction, wherein a current is input to one arm among the first arm and the second arm and the current is output from another arm, and
the first magneto-electric conversion unit including the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is positioned on a side of the second arm relative to a center line of the first arm with respect to the width direction.
However, Bilbao, further teaches:
wherein the conductor further includes a second arm that is separated from the first arm in the width direction, wherein a current is input to one arm among the first arm and the second arm and the current is output from another arm (Fig. 3E; [0003], [0017]-[0019], & [0064]: teaches a conductor formed of two separate legs/Arms (U-shape) separated in the width direction, due to the continuous U-shape, current is input into the first arm, travels through the U-shape, and is output from the second arm, flowing in “relatively opposite directions”), and
the first magneto-electric conversion unit including the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is positioned on a side of the second arm relative to a center line of the first arm with respect to the width direction (Fig. 3E; [0051]-[0052] & [0064]: teaches offsetting the current sensor 30 from the center line (centre 26) the conductor arm. Fig. 3E illustrates current sensors 30 mounted on the inner facing surfaces of the U-shaped legs (arms) Geometrically placing sensors 30 on the inner surface of the first arm corresponds to its position “on a side of the second arm relative to a center of the first arm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the current measurement device of Takenaka, incorporating the sensor of Raberg and Suto, to utilize a U-shaped conductor having a first and second arm with the current sensor offset toward the inner gap between the arms, as taught by Bilbao. Bilbao teaches that using a U-shaped conductor with sensors mounted on the inner legs allows the system to sense the same current flowing in relatively opposite directions while sensing external magnetic fields in the same orientation. A POSITA would be motivated to apply this U-shaped conductor and offset placement to the sensor system of Raberg/Takenaka to predictably achieve a differential cancellation of external magnetic fields, improving the signal-to-noise ratio and accuracy of the current sensor (KSR).
Claim(s) 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, and further in view of Schmitt (US 2019/0011287 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 10, 2019, hereinafter Schmitt).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the conductor further includes a second arm that is separated from the first arm in the width direction, wherein a current is input into one arm among the first arm and the second arm and the current is output from another arm,
wherein a center of the first magneto-electric conversion unit including the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is positioned on a side of the second arm relative to a position of a maximum magnetic field generated on the first arm when the current flows through the conductor, with respect to the width direction.
However, Bilbao, in combination with Schmitt, further teach:
wherein the conductor further includes a second arm that is separated from the first arm in the width direction, wherein a current is input into one arm among the first arm and the second arm and the current is output from another arm (Bilbao: Fig. 3E; [0017 & [0064]: both references teach a conductor separated into a first and second arm (U-shape); Schmitt: Fig. 36; [0147]-[0148]: current is input into the first arm (flowing upwardly), travels across the top and outputs from the second arm (flowing downwardly)),
wherein a center of the first magneto-electric conversion unit including the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is positioned on a side of the second arm relative to a position of a maximum magnetic field generated on the first arm when the current flows through the conductor, with respect to the width direction (Bilbao: Fig. 3E; [0051]-[0052], [0064], [0067], & [0076]-[0078]: teaches that at high frequencies, the skin effect forces the maximum current density to the outer edges of the conductor; Schmitt: Fig. 36; [0132] & [0147]-[0148]: Fig. 36 further illustrates the sensor bridges overlapping the inner edges of the U-shaped bar 690).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetic sensor of Raberg and Takenaka, to utilize a U-shaped conductor arrangement as taught by Bilbao and Schmitt, and to offset the position of the sensor relative to the conductor edges as taught by Bilbao. Schmitt teaches utilizing a primary U-shaped bar with a magnetic sensor bridge allows the system to sense a differential magnetic field without requiring an external magnetic shield. Bilbao teaches that offsetting the sensor toward the inner gap of the U-shape mitigates magnetic dispersion caused by the skin effect at the outer edges, and to avoid the outer edges where current density is highest. A POSITA would recognize that according to Ohm’s Law (E = ρJ), the position of maximum current density (J) dictates the position of the maximum electric field (E). Therefore, a POSITA would be motivated to position the center of the sensor on the side of the second arm (inward) relative to the outer edge of the first arm to mitigate high-frequency dispersion and improve measurement accuracy, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
wherein a unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction.
However, Suto, in combination with Schmitt, further teach:
wherein a unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction (Suto: Figs. 3A & 8; [0002], [0009]-[0011], [0032], [0034], [0067], & [0069]: teaches arraying the individual magneto-resistive elements (unit regions) in a matrix layout alongside each other for form resistive sides; Schmitt: Fig. 7; [0082]-[0086]: corroborates further teaching that to increase the effective length and sensitivity of the resistive branches, each magneto-resistor is formed from multiple elements (e.g., 12-1, 12-2, 14-1, 14-2, etc.) deposited parallel and adjacent to one another. Geometrically laying the linear stripes parallel and adjacent to one another on a planar substrate constitutes arraying the unit regions in the “width direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first through fourth resistive sides of the Raberg/Takenaka conversion unit such that their respective unit regions are arrayed in the width direction, as taught by Suto and Schmitt. Schmitt teaches that arraying several series-connected stripes of magneto-resistive material parallel to one another enhances the strength of the magneto-resistive response by increasing the length-to-width ratio of the resistor without a long footprint. Suto teaches that arraying these plural elements in a side-by-side matrix improves output linearity. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the parallel, width-arrayed geometry to the resistive sides of the sensor bridge to predictably achieve increased sensitivity, higher resistance, and improved linearity within a compact integrated circuit layout (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 4 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao are silent in regard to:
wherein each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side includes a first unit region and a second unit region, each arranged on one side and another side in a conducting direction of a current flowing through the conductor,
the first unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction, and
the second unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order to the first unit region in the width direction.
However, Schmitt, further teaches:
wherein each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side includes a first unit region and a second unit region (Figs. 27 & 28; [0134] & [0154]-[0158]: teaches diving each of the four resistive sides into two separate unit regions (sub-magnetoresistive elements), for example resistive side 312 is split into first unit region 312A and second unit region 312B), each arranged on one side and another side in a conducting direction of a current flowing through the conductor (Fig. 27; [0131]-[0132], [0134]-[0135], & [0154]-[0158]: teaches spacing the two unit regions apart into a first portion and second portion along the layout),
the first unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0134] & [0154]-[0158]: Fig. 27 further illustrates the first unit regions (‘A’ series elements) of the four resistive sides are arrayed side-by-side across the width direction of the sensor layout), and
the second unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order to the first unit region in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0134] & [0154]-[0158]: Fig. 27 further illustrates the physical ordering of the elements. The first portion is arrayed left-to-right as 312A, 314A, 316A, 318A. The second portion is arrayed left-to-right as 318B, 316B, 314B, 312B. This constitutes arraying the second unit regions in the reverse order to the first unit region across the width direction).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claim invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the layout of the magnetic sensor resistive sides of Raberg and Suto to include two spaced-apart regions arrayed in reverse spatial order, as taught by Schmitt. Schmitt mentions a known problem in integrated magnetic sensors: different parts of a substrate can have different temperatures, creating unwanted temperature gradients that induce measurement errors and offset drift. To solve this, Schmitt teaches separating each resistive side into two unit regions and using a cross-coupled layout where the second set of unit regions is arrayed in reverse order to the first set. A POSITA would be motivated to apply this reverse-order spatial layout to the sensor bridge of Raberg to predictably achieve improved thermal matching and eliminate measurement errors caused by ambient temperature gradients across the sensor die. This represents the routine application of a known layout technique (interdigitated layout) to achieve a predictable results (KSR), and stated in Schmitt, improving sensor stability.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 5 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao are silent in regard to:
wherein each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side further includes a third unit region and a fourth unit region each arranged on one side and another side in the conducting direction of the current,
the third unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction, and
the fourth unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order to the third unit region in the width direction.
However, Schmitt, further teaches:
wherein each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side further includes a third unit region and a fourth unit region (Figs. 27 & 28; [0082]-[0085], [0134] & [0155]-[0158]: teaches that each resistive side (magneto-resistor) of the bridge is not limited to just two portions (A and B) but can be formed of four or more unit regions to predictably scale the resistance) each arranged on one side and another side in the conducting direction of the current (Fig. 27; [0131]-[0132], [0134]-[0135], & [0155]-[0158]: teaches spacing the sub-elements into different portions on the sensor layout. Just as the 1st and 2nd unit regions are spaced apart along the current’s conducting direction, 3rd and 4th regions would be inherently arranged in spaced-apart portions (one side and another side) to accommodate the physical layout of the additional elements),
the third unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134], & [0155]-[0158]: teaches and illustrates in Fig. 27 arraying the first set of unit regions side-by-side across the width direction. When extending the sensor to include a third unit region per resistive side to scale up resistance, a POSITA would routinely continue this parallel, side-by-side array pattern in the width direction), and
the fourth unit region of each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order to the third unit region in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134], & [0155]-[0158]: solves the problem of temperature drift caused by temperature gradients across the substrate by arraying separated unit regions in a reverse spatial order (e.g., 1-2-3-4 paired with 4-3-2-1). When expanding the sensor to include a 3rd and 4th unit regions to increase resistance, would be obvious to a POSITA to arrange the 4th unit region in the exact reverse order to the 3rd unit region to avoid reintroducing thermal gradient errors the layout is designed to eliminate).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claim invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the layout of the magnetic sensor resistive sides of Raberg and Suto, as modified by Schmitt, to further include a third and fourth unit region arrayed in reverse spatial order, as taught by Schmitt. Schmitt teaches that the resistance and sensitivity of the sensor can be scaled up by forming each resistive side out of four or more unit regions instead of just two. Further, Schmitt mentions a known problem of temperature drift across a substrate, and solves it by arraying split sensor portions in a reverse-order layout. A POSITA would be motivated to add the third and fourth unit regions, as suggested by Schmitt, and apply Schmitt’s exact same reverse-order array layout to these additional regions. The predictable result is a higher-resistance, higher-sensitivity magnetic sensor that maintains continuous thermal matching and offset compensation across the footprint of the integrated circuit. This represents the routine application of a known layout technique (interdigitated layout) to achieve a predictable results (KSR), and stated in Schmitt, improving sensor stability.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 5 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the first unit region and the second unit region included in each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side are arranged to have 180-degree rotational symmetry on the first arm.
However, Bilbao, in combination with Schmitt, further teach:
wherein the first unit region and the second unit region included in each of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side are arranged to have 180-degree rotational symmetry (Schmitt: Fig. 27; [0134]: teaches mitigating temperature drift by splitting the resistive sides into two portions arranged in opposing geometric orders (e.g., 1-2-3-4 in the top portion, and 4-3-2-1 in the bottom portion). This layout technique is a common-centroid layout, geometrically, if this specific array is rotated exactly 180 degrees around its center point, the elements map onto their matching pairs (e.g., the top-left element swaps positions with the bottom-right element)) on the first arm (Bilbao: Fig. 3E; [0051-[0053]: teaches the physical mounting location of the sensor unit, the sensor array is mounted directly onto the first arm of the conductor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layout of the magnetic sensor of Raberg, mounted on the first arm as taught by Bilbao, to arrange the split unit regions so that they have 180-degree rotational symmetry, as taught by Schmitt. Schmitt mentions a known problem in integrated sensors where ambient temperature gradients a cross a substrate induce measurement errors. To solve this, Schmitt, teaches arranged the separated unit regions into a cross-coupled, reverse-order array. A POSITA would understand that this specific geometric arrangement constitutes a common-centroid layout, defined by its 180-degree rotational point symmetry, which is a standard industry technique for canceling linear thermal and mechanical stress gradients. A POSITA would be motivated to apply this 180-degree rotationally symmetric layout to the sensor bridge located on the conductor arm to predictably achieve (KSR) thermal matching and eliminate temperature-drift errors across the footprint of the sensor.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, and further in view of Karnaushenko et al. (US 11467226 B2, Pat. Date Oct. 11, 2022, hereinafter, Karnaushenko).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
wherein the at least some magnetoresistive elements are arrayed three-dimensionally within the unit region.
However, Karnaushenko, further teaches:
wherein the at least some magnetoresistive elements are arrayed three-dimensionally within the unit region (Fig. 1; [Col. 1, ll. 29-46], [Col. 9, ll. 58-67], [Col. 10, ll. 1-10], & [Col. 12, ll. 11-22]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the planar unit regions of the Raberg/Suto sensor bridge, which utilize 2D matrices of series-connected elements to increase resistance, by arraying those magnetoresistive elements three-dimensionally, utilizing the 3D assembly techniques, taught by Karnaushenko. Karnaushenko mentions a known problem in microelectronics: simple, cost-effective components requiring too much space, and a small footprint is of “great importance so that the functional density…can be further increased”. To solve this, Karnaushenko teaches mechanically self-assembling planar magnetic sensor layouts into 3D geometries, such as rolling them into a compact “Swiss roll”. A POSITA seeking to increase the total series resistance and functional density of the Suto/Schmitt unit regions without expanding the two-dimensional footprint of the die would be motivated to apply Karnaushenko’s 3D geometric arraying techniques. The predictable result of this combination (KSR) is a high-sensitivity sensor unit region that fits within a compact, three-dimensionally optimized physical footprint.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0002], [0005]-[0006], [0026], & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
wherein the plurality of magnetoresistive elements are tunneling magnetoresistive elements or giant magnetoresistive elements.
However, Suto, in combination with Karnaushenko, further teach:
wherein the plurality of magnetoresistive elements are tunneling magnetoresistive elements or giant magnetoresistive elements (Suto: [0033], [0069], & [Claim 9]: teaches that the plurality of magnetoresistive elements comprising the resistor arrays can be formulated as magnetoresistance (TMR) elements; Karnaushenko: [Col. 6, ll. 27-36]: corroborates and lists both GMR and TMR sensors as the material systems to use when fabricating these type of 3D magnetic components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the magnetoresistive elements of the Raberg sensor bridge to be tunneling magnetoresistive (TMR) elements or giant magnetoresistive (GMR) elements, as taught by Suto and Karnaushenko. Suto discloses utilizing a tunnel barrier layer to form a tunnel magnetoresistance element. A POSITA would be motivated to select TMR or GMR elements for the physical composition of the sensor bridge because it is well known in the art that TMR and GMR structures provide a higher magnetoresistive ration (MR ratio) and improved magnetic field sensitivity compared to conventional anisotropic (AMR) or standard Hall effect elements. This represents the substitution of one known magnetic sensing material system (GMR/TMR) for another to predictably achieve a higher sensitivity and signal strength (KSR).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, and further in view of Tamura (US 2015/0015241 A1, Pub. Date Jan. 15, 2015, hereinafter, Tamura).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 1 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, is silent in regard to:
wherein the magnetic sensing direction of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is parallel to the width direction.
However, Raberg, in combination with Tamura, further teach:
wherein the magnetic sensing direction of the first resistive side to the fourth resistive side is parallel to the width direction (Raberg: [0005]-[0006], [0063], & [0105]-[0106]: describes configuring the reference magnetizations (sensing directions) of the first through the fourth elements; Tamura: Figs. 1-2 [0037]: teaches the required geometric orientation of the sensing directions relative to the conductor arm: the sensitive axis (magnetic sensitive direction) of the magnetic sensor element must be positioned parallel to the width direction of the busbar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the magnetic sensing directions of the first through the fourth resistive sides of the Raberg sensor bridge to be parallel to the width direction of the conductor arm, as taught by Tamura. Tamura teaches a current sensor arranged on a busbar where the sensitive axis (magnetic sensing direction) of the magnetic sensor element is provided in a direction parallel to the width direction of the busbar. Tamura provides the motivation for this arrangement: aligning the sensitive axis parallel to the width direction allows the magnetic field generated by the measured current flowing longitudinally through the bust bar to be detected by the sensor element. A POSITA would be motivated to apply Tamura’s geometric alignment, arranging the sensing directions of the resistive sides to be parallel to the width direction, to predictably ensure the sensor detects the generated magnetic field and outputs a reliable measurement (KSR).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2025/0067780 A1, Fil. Date Nov. 17, 2022, hereinafter, Liu).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 2 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
further comprising a second magneto-electric conversion unit including a fifth resistive side, a sixth resistive side, a seventh resistive side, and an eighth resistive side, wherein magnetic sensing directions of the fifth resistive side and the eighth resistive side are identical to each other, magnetic sensing directions of the sixth resistive side and the seventh resistive side are identical to each other and opposite to magnetic sensing directions of the fifth resistive side and the eighth resistive side, the fifth resistive side and the sixth resistive side are connected in series, the seventh resistive side and the eighth resistive side are connected in series and are connected in parallel to the fifth resistive side and the sixth resistive side to be assembled into a Wheatstone bridge circuit, and at least a part of the second magneto-electric conversion unit is arranged on the second arm and is connected in parallel to the first magneto-electric conversion unit.
However, Liu, further teaches:
further comprising a second magneto-electric conversion unit including a fifth resistive side, a sixth resistive side, a seventh resistive side, and an eighth resistive side (Fig. 16; [0082]), wherein magnetic sensing directions of the fifth resistive side and the eighth resistive side are identical to each other (Fig. 16; [0082]-[0084]: the second magnetic induction unit 212, arms 212d1 and 212d4 (comprise the fifth and eighth resistive sides) have identical sensitivity directions (right)), magnetic sensing directions of the sixth resistive side and the seventh resistive side are identical to each other and opposite to magnetic sensing directions of the fifth resistive side and the eighth resistive side (Fig. 16; [0082]-[0084]: the second magnetic induction unit 212, arms 212d2 and 212d3 (comprise the sixth and eighth resistive sides) have identical sensitivity directions (left), which are opposite to the fifth and eighth resistive sides), the fifth resistive side and the sixth resistive side are connected in series (Fig. 16; [0082]-[0084]: Fig. 16 illustrates the fifth and sixth resistive sides connected in series, 212d1 and 212d2), the seventh resistive side and the eighth resistive side are connected in series and are connected in parallel to the fifth resistive side and the sixth resistive side to be assembled into a Wheatstone bridge circuit (Fig. 16; [0082]-[0084]: Fig. 16 illustrates the four arms assembled into a standard parallel-branch Wheatstone bridge circuit), and at least a part of the second magneto-electric conversion unit is arranged on the second arm (Figs. 11 & 19; [0074]-[0076]: teaches arranging the first magnetic induction unit 211 on a first magnetoresistive bridge arm 211a and second magnetic induction unit 212 on a second magnetoresistive bridge arm 212a) and is connected in parallel to the first magneto-electric conversion unit (Fig. 16; [0042], [0045], [0063], [0065]-[0066], [0069], [0074], [0084], [0093], [0097], [0102], [0111], [Claim 2], & [Claim 3]: Fig. 16 further illustrates the first magnetic induction unit 211 and the second magnetic induction unit 212 both having their top input nodes connected to the same shared Vcc terminal, and their bottom nodes connected to the same shared Ground terminal).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claim invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the magnetic sensor of Raberg/Takenaka to include a second magneto-electric conversion unit, as taught by Liu. Liu mentions a known problem in current measurement: single-bridge sensors are susceptible to common-mode external magnetic field interference and can suffer from a limited measurement range. To solve this, Liu teaches a double full-bridge differential architecture, utilizing a first and second magnetic induction unit located above the two parallel arms of a U-shaped conductor. Liu further teaches forming this second unit from four magnetoresistive arms configured with identical and opposing sensing directions to form a Wheatstone bridge, and illustrates in Fig. 16 connected this second unit in parallel with the first unit to form a common power supply (Vcc). A POSITA would be motivated to apply the parallel-wired, double full-bridge architecture of Liu to the current sensor to predictably achieve a differential output that doubles the signal sensitivity to the measured current while canceling out common-mode external magnetic noise, and improving the sensor’s accuracy and robustness (KSR).
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
each formed by connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series,
However, Suto, in combination with Liu, further teach:
each formed by connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series (Suto: [0009], [0011], [0031], [0034], [0069], & [0076]-[0077]; Liu: [0045], [0084], & [Claim 3]: both references teach that the individual resistive sides of the bridge are formed by connecting multiple magnetoresistive elements in series),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magneto-electric conversion unit, the second full Wheatstone bridge of Liu, such that each of its respective sides (fifth and eighth resistive sides) is formed by connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series, as further corroborated and taught by Suto. Suto provides the motivation for this specific internal arrangement, teaching that connecting a plurality of magnetoresistive elements in series to form the resistive sides (resistor arrays) allows the output waveforms of individual elements to be superimposed, stating that the series-connected structure is used “to provide a magnetic sensor capable of improving the linearity of the output” and that “the linear region in the output characteristic curve of the resistor array can be expanded”. A POSITA would be motivated to construct its individual resistive arms out of series-connected pluralities of MR elements, as taught by Suto. The predictable result of this combination is a robust differential magnetic current sensor that benefits from both Liu’s common-mode noise cancellation and Suto’s extended linear range. This represents the combination of known electrical layout techniques (series-connected resistor arrays) with a known sensor architecture (dual parallel bridges) to predictably achieve a wide-range sensor capable of accurate and linear measurements (KSR).
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, in view of Liu, and further in view of Schmitt.
Regarding dependent claim 12, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 11 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]), is
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, are silent in regard to:
wherein a unit region where at least some magnetoresistive elements among a plurality of magnetoresistive elements each forming the fifth resistive side, the sixth resistive side, the seventh resistive side, and the eighth resistive side are arranged to be adjacent
However, Suto, in combination with Liu, further teach:
wherein a unit region where at least some magnetoresistive elements among a plurality of magnetoresistive elements each forming the fifth resistive side, the sixth resistive side, the seventh resistive side, and the eighth resistive side are arranged to be adjacent (Suto: [0009], [0011], [0031-[0032]], [0034], [0069], & [0076]-[0077]: provides the physical arrangement for the connected elements, teaching that the plurality of elements are arranged adjacently to form the “unit region” (resistor array); Liu: [0045], [0066], [0082]-[0084], [Claim 3]: teaches forming the fifth through the eighth resistive sides out of multiple connected magnetoresistive sensitive elements)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magneto-electric conversion unit of Liu, comprising the fifth through eighth resistive sides, such that the plurality of magnetoresistive elements forming each resistive side are arranged adjacently in a matrix to form a unit region, as taught by Suto. Suto teaches that the motivation for arranging the elements adjacently in the matrix layout is “to provide a magnetic sensor capable of improving the linearity of the output while minimizing any reduction in magnetic field detection sensitivity”. Further, Liu teaches a wide-range current sensor utilizing a double full-bridge differential architecture, where the second magnetic induction unit (second Wheatstone bridge) is utilized to cancel common-node noise. A POSITA would be motivated to arrange the individual magnetoresistive elements of the second bridge’s arms adjacently to form unit regions, as taught by Suto. The predictable result of this combination is a differential magnetic current sensor that is resistant to common-mode external noise, via Liu’s architecture, and also exhibits a linear operating range and spatial efficient, via Suto’s adjacent matrix/array layout geometry. This represents the application of a known semiconductor layout technique (adjacent matrix array) to a known sensor architecture to predictably achieve improved measurement linearity (KSR).
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, Bilbao, and Liu, are silent in regard to:
arrayed in the width direction.
However, Schmitt, further teaches:
arrayed in the width direction (Fig. 7; [0082]-[0086]: teaches arraying the individual unit regions (stripes/elements) parallel and adjacent to one another to increase sensitivity without making the footprint long. Geometrically, laying the linear stripes parallel to one another on the substrates constitutes arraying the unit regions in the “width direction” of the sensor package).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the second magneto-electric conversion unit of Liu such that the unit regions forming its fifth through eighth resistive sides are arranged adjacently and arrayed in the width direction, as taught by Suto and Schmitt. Schmitt teaches that arraying several series-connected stripes of magneto-resistive material parallel to one another enhances the strength of the magneto-resistive response by increasing the length-to-width ratio of the resistor without requiring an excessive long physical footprint. Further, Suto teaches that arraying the plural elements adjacently in a side-by-side matrix improves output linearity. Liu teaches that the second conversion unit (second bridge) serves as a matching differential counterpart to the first conversion unit to cancel common-node noise. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the layout geometry, arraying the unit regions in the width direction, to the second unit. Utilizing the exact layout for the second bridge is a standard design choice to predictably ensure matched resistance scaling, sensitivity, and linearity between the two differential sensor halves, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 12 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
wherein each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side includes a fifth unit region and a sixth unit region each arranged on one side and another side of the conducting direction of the current,
the fifth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction, and
the sixth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order of the fifth unit region in the width direction.
However, Liu, in view of Schmitt, further teach:
wherein each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side includes a fifth unit region and a sixth unit region (Figs. 27-28; [0082]-[0085], [0134] & [0154]-[0158]:teaches dividing each resistive side of a Wheatstone bridge into two separate unit regions (sub-magnetoresistive elements). When applied to the second bridge (the fifth to the eighth resistive sides), these two separate portions map to the “fifth unit region” and “sixth unit region”) each arranged on one side and another side of the conducting direction of the current (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0131]-[0132], [0134]-[0135], & [0154]-[0158]: teaches spacing two unit regions apart into a “first portion” and “second portion”. When the second conversion unit is mounted on the second arm of the current-carrying conductor, spacing these two portions apart longitudinally places them on “one side and another side in a conducting direction”),
the fifth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134] & [0154]-[0158]: Fig. 27 further illustrates the first set of unit regions (‘A’ series elements) for the bridge (four resistive sides) are arrayed side-by-side across the width direction of the sensor layout), and
the sixth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order of the fifth unit region in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134] & [0154]-[0158]: Fig. 27 further illustrates the physical ordering of the elements. The first portion arrayed left-to-right as 312A, 314A, 316A, 318A. The second portion is arrayed left-to-right as 318B, 316B, 314B, 312B. This constitutes arraying the subsequent unit regions in the exact reverse to the first unit regions across the width direction to cancel temperature drift).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claim invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the layout of the second magneto-electric conversion unit of Liu, comprising the fifth through eight resistive sides, to include two spaced-apart unit regions arrayed in reverse spatial order, as taught by Schmitt. Liu teaches utilizing a second full-bridge sensor unit to match the first full-bridge sensor unit, operating them differentially in parallel to cancel common-mode magnetic interference. Schmitt mentions that integrated magnetic sensors experience measurement drift caused by temperature gradient across the substrate, and solves this by separating the bridge arms and arraying them in a cross-coupled, reverse-order layout. A POSITA would be motivated to apply Schmitt’s reverse-order layout technique not just to the first bridge, but identically to the second bridge. Failing to apply the same thermal-drift-canceling layout to the second bridge would predictably cause the two bridges to respond differently to ambient temperature gradients, inducing an offset error and defeating the purpose of Liu’s matches differential sensing architecture. This represents the application of a known thermal-matching layout technique to a known differential sensor unit to predictably achieve stable, drift-free measurements, improved thermal matching and eliminate measurement errors caused by ambient temperature gradients across the sensor die (KSR).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Raberg, teaches:
The magnetic sensor according to claim 13 (Fig. 5; [0005]-[0006] & [0063]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
wherein each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side further includes a seventh unit region and an eighth unit region each arranged on one side and another side of the conducting direction of the current,
the seventh unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction, and
the eighth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order of the seventh unit region in the width direction.
However, Liu, in view of Schmitt, further teach:
wherein each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side further includes a seventh unit region and an eighth unit region (Figs. 27 & 28; [0082]-[0085], [0134], & [0155]-[0158]: teaches that each resistive side (magneto-resistor) of the sensor bridge is not limited to just two portions (A and B) but can be formed of four or more unit regions to predictably scale the resistance. When applied to the second sensor bridge, these additional elements constitute the seventh and eighth regions) each arranged on one side and another side of the conducting direction of the current (Fig. 27; [0131]-[0132], [0134]-[0135], & [0155]-[0158]: teaches separating the sub-elements into different portions on the sensor layout. Just as the 5th and 6th unit regions are spaced apart along the current’s conducting direction, 7th and 8th regions would be inherently arranged in spaced-apart portions (one side and another side) to accommodate the physical layout of the additional elements),
the seventh unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134], & [0155]-[0158]: teaches and illustrates in Fig. 27 arraying the unit regions side-by-side across the width direction. When extending the sensor bridge to include a seventh unit region per resistive side to scale up resistance, a POSITA would routinely continue this parallel, side-by-side array pattern in the width direction), and
the eighth unit region of each of the fifth resistive side to the eighth resistive side is arrayed in a reverse order of the seventh unit region in the width direction (Fig. 27; [0082]-[0085], [0134], & [0155]-[0158]: solves the problem of temperature drift caused by temperature drift across the substrate by arraying separated unit regions in a reverse spatial order (e.g., 1-2-3-4 paired with 4-3-2-1). When expanding the sensor to include a 7th and 8th unit regions to increase resistance, would be obvious to a POSITA to arrange the 8th unit region in the exact reverse order to the 7rd unit region to avoid reintroducing thermal gradient errors the layout is designed to eliminate, and to ensure the extended footprint of the second bridge is thermally balanced).
It is recognized that the citations and evidence provided above are derived from potentially different embodiments of a single reference. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claim invention pertains, to employ combinations and sub-combinations of these complementary embodiments, and otherwise motivate experimentation and optimization. In this case, it would have been obvious to modify the layout of the second magneto-electric conversion unit of Liu, the fifth through eighth resistive sides, to further include a seventh and eighth unit region arrayed reverse spatial order, as taught by Schmitt. Liu teaches a dual-bridge differential architecture where the second sensor bridge serves as a matched counterpart to the first sensor bridge to cancel common-mode noise. Schmitt teaches that the resistance and sensitivity of a bridge can be scaled up by forming each resistive side out of four or more unit regions instead of just two. Further, Schmitt solves a known problem of temperature drift across these extended elements by arraying them in a reverse-order layout. A POSITA would be motivated to apply the exact same scaling and reverse-order layout to the second bridge, adding the seventh and eighth unit regions, as suggested by Schmitt. Failing to identically scale and thermally match the second bridge would predictably destroy the symmetric balance of the differential sensor, reintroducing the temperature-drift errors that the architecture is designed to eliminate. Further, would predictably result in a higher-resistance, higher-sensitivity magnetic sensor that maintains continuous thermal matching and offset compensation across the extended footprint of the integrated circuit. This represents the routine application of a known layout technique (interdigitated layout) to achieve a predictable results (KSR), and stated in Schmitt, improving sensor stability.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, in view of Tamura, and further in view of Liu.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Raberg, teaches:
the magnetic sensor according to any one of claims 1 to 14; (Fig. 5; [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0032], & [0063]); and
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
A current sensor comprising:
However, Bilbao, in combination with Tamura, further teach:
A current sensor comprising (Bilbao: [Abstract], [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0064], & [0076]; Tamura: [0034] & [Claim 1]: both references teach a “current sensor” that comprises the “magnetic sensor”):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the magnetic sensor, as modified by Raberg, Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, with the current-carrying conductor to form a complete current sensor system, as taught by Tamura and Bilbao. Tamura teaches a complete current sensor module that packages both the magnetic sensor element and the bus bar (conductor through which the measured current flows) into a single functional unit. A POSITA that would utilize the accurate, noise-canceling dual-bridge magnetic sensor developed in the preceding claims, would be motivated to integrate the current-carrying conductor with the U-shaped conductor arm into a current sensor device. This represents the industry-standard packaging of a sensor and its target measurement medium into a commercial product, yielding the predictable result of a ready-to-install current measurement module.
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
the conductor through which a to-be-measured current flows.
However, Tamura, in combination with Liu, further teach:
the conductor through which a to-be-measured current flows (Tamura: [0035: teaches that the bus bar (the conductor) is the component through which the “measured current is passed”]; Liu: [Abstract], [0007]-[0008], [0010]-[0011], [0039]-[0040], [0054]-[0055], [0071], [0075], [0077], [0079], [0081], [0083], [0089]-[0090], [0092], [0096], [0099], [0101], [0105], & [0108]: corroborates by including the “current input copper bar” directly into the current sensor module).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the dual-bridge magnetic sensor architecture taught by Liu with the current-carrying conductor to form an integrated, self-contained current sensor system, as taught by Tamura and Liu. Tamura provides the structural motivation for the integration, teaching that fixing the sensor to the bus bar ensures the sensitive axis remains parallel to the width direction, allowing accurate detection of the magnetic field generated by the measured current. Liu corroborates and teaches a complete current sensor system that comprises the primary-side current input copper bar (U-shaped conductor) and the magnetic induction module (the dual-bridge magnetic sensor. Further, Liu states the motivation is to create a sensor that isolates input and output, measures AC and DC currents, and has a strong resistance to external magnetic field interference. A POSITA would be motivated to integrate self-contained sensor system directly with the conductor through which the current flows, as taught by Tamura and Liu. The predictable result of this combination is a self-contained current measurement module ready for commercial deployment. This represents the industry-standard packaging of a sensing element with corresponding measurement medium (the conductor) to achieve the stated goal of Tamura and Liu: creating a complete, accurate current sensor system (KSR).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, in view of Tamura, in view of Liu, and further in view of Schmitt.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Raberg, in combination with Tamura and Bilbao, teach:
The current sensor according to claim 15 (Raberg: Fig. 5; [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0032], & [0063]; Bilbao: [Abstract], [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0064], & [0076]; Tamura: [0034] & [Claim 1]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, and Suto, are silent in regard to:
wherein the conductor through which the to-be-measured current flows includes a first arm, a second arm separated from the first arm in the width direction, and a joining portion joining the first arm and the second arm, and
However, Bilbao, in combination with Liu, further teach:
wherein the conductor through which the to-be-measured current flows includes a first arm, a second arm separated from the first arm in the width direction, and a joining portion joining the first arm and the second arm (Bilbao: Fig. 3E; [0064]: defines the conductor having a ”U-shape with two legs”, which constitutes the first arm and second arm, separated in the width direction, and a joining portion joining the two arms; Liu: Fig. 1; [Abstract], [0042], [0054]-[0055], & [Claim 1]), and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the current-carrying conductor to have a first arm, a second separated arm, and a joining portion where both arms extend on the same side, which is the structural definition of the U-shaped conductors taught by Bilbao, Schmitt, and Liu. Bilbao and Liu teach utilizing a U-shaped conductor to route a single current in opposite parallel directions beneath two separate magnetic sensor units to enable common-mode cancellation via differential measurement. A POSITA would be motivated to use a conductor shaped such that the two parallel arms extend from a common joining portion on the same side (a standard U or horse shoe shape), and this is recognized as the layout required to achieve the necessary 180-degree current turn within a compact footprint, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, Bilbao, and Tamura, are silent in regard to:
the first arm and the second arm extend on a same side with respect to the joining portion.
However, Bilbao, in combination with Liu, and Schmitt, further teach:
the first arm and the second arm extend on a same side with respect to the joining portion (Bilbao: Fig. 3E; [0015], [0019], [0063]-[0065], & [0072]: discloses the arms extending, Fig. 3E further illustrates the U-shape; Liu: Figs. 1, 4, & 7; [Abstract], [0009], [0039][0042], [0047]-[[0048], [0055], [0058], [0062], [0092]-[0093], [0097], [0099], [0102], & [Claim 1]: mentions arms on the same plane and Figures further illustrate the U-shape; Schmitt: Fig. 36; [0132] & [0147]-[0148]: Fig. 36 illustrates the U-shape and two parallel current-carrying arms extending downwards (on the same side) from the joining portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the current-carrying conductor to have a first arm and second separated arm, and extend on a same side, which is the structural definition of the U-shaped conductors taught by Bilbao, Schmitt, and Liu. Bilbao, Liu, and Schmitt, teach utilizing a U-shaped conductor to route a single current in opposite parallel directions beneath two separate magnetic sensor units to enable common-mode cancellation via differential measurement. A POSITA would be motivated to use a conductor shaped such that the two parallel arms extend from a common joining portion on the same side (a standard U or horse shoe shape), and this is recognized as the layout required to achieve the necessary 180-degree current turn within a compact footprint, yielding expected predictable results (KSR).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raberg, in view of Takenaka, in view of Suto, in view of Bilbao, in view of Tamura, in view of Liu, in view of Schmitt, and further in view of Boden et al. (US 2023/0058695 A1, Fil. Date Mar. 10, 2022, hereinafter, Boden).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Raberg, in combination with Tamura and Bilbao, teach:
The current sensor according to claim 15 (Raberg: Fig. 5; [0001], [0005]-[0006], [0032], & [0063]; Bilbao: [Abstract], [0003]-[0004], [0017], [0064], & [0076]; Tamura: [0034] & [Claim 1]),
Raberg, in combination with Takenaka, Suto, and Bilbao, are silent in regard to:
wherein a distance from a surface on a side of the conductor including a magneto-electric conversion unit to a magneto-sensitive surface is greater than 0.16 mm.
However, Tamura, in combination with Boden, further teach:
wherein a distance from a surface on a side of the conductor including a magneto-electric conversion unit to a magneto-sensitive surface is greater than 0.16 mm (Tamura: [0036] & [0038]: both references teach mounting the sensor die onto the conductor using non-conductive isolation layers on a wiring board; Boden: [0004], [0029]-[0031], [0051]-[0055], & [0058]: teaches 0.140 mm and 0.162 mm as the nominal spatial distance required to achieve dielectric isolation (e.g., 300V) between the high-current primary conductor and the sensitive low-voltage components in a packaged current sensor, and teaches the thickness of the primary conductor and the secondary leads is on the order of 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the integrated current sensor such that the distance from the conductor surface to the magneto-sensitive surface is greater than 0.16 mm, as taught by Boden. Boden mentions the need for electrical isolation in packaged current sensor, teaching that a nominal spacing distance of 0.16 mm is a recognized industry standard required to achieve 300V dielectric isolation between the primary high-current conductor and the integrated circuit components. Further, Boden teaches that the semiconductor die is attached to the conductor utilizing multiple layers of non-conductive coating, tape or epoxy, to ensure the electrical isolation. These multiple layers would further increase the 0.16 mm distance. A POSITA integrating the magnetic sensor array with the current-carrying conductor, would be motivated to ensure the spatial gap between the conductor surface and the magneto-sensitive elements on the die exceeds 0.16 mm. Doing so is an obvious and necessary safety design choice to predictably provide dielectric isolation, preventing high-voltage arcing or dielectric breakdown from the primary conductor to the sensor array, and yield expected predictable results (KSR).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGO NAVARRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 08:30-5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at 571-272-4448. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUGO NAVARRO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858 June 4, 2026
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights